Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 17 March 2017

This is Boomer Vial's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Barnstars, awards, and WikiLove messages The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar you're doing good Pim Jongkind (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC) You're off to a good start as a new Wikipedian; enjoy this kitten! Esquivalience 02:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC) being an awesome person thank you for the welcome message that you sent me CuteCountryGirl1234 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Sometimes, recognizing your own diligent work is the best commentary needed. Boomer Vial 08:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle welcoming templates

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hey there. Is there an welcome template for Twinkle for WP:OR? It can be rather confusing to leave templates on the talk pages of new users, when it does not explain exactly how the editor in question was editing outside of guidelines and policies. If not, can you direct me to an area of Misplaced Pages in which I could make such a suggestion? Thank you. Boomer Vial 01:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any welcoming templates that covers NOR specifically, other than maybe {{Welcome-laws}}. You can use {{uw-nor1}} and the other level templates to warn editors adding original research. If you feel like asking for a NOR welcome template, you might have some luck mentioning it at the WT:Welcoming Committee. Let me know if you have any other questions! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber Will do. Thank you. Boomer Vial 02:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI cases and IPs

Hi Boomer Vial, regarding your removal of the semi protected edit request template and the IP's request to move the page on Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations/1832 Heritage. IP users are unable to create pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace so, to open an SPI, that they need to create it in the Misplaced Pages talk namespace and ask that it be moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace by an autoconfirmed user. Kind regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Callanecc Oh, shit. I'm sorry, I had absolutely no idea. Boomer Vial 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

PAN HistoryATL

Hi Boomer Vial! I saw your message on the editor's user talk page and wanted to get back to you about it. I must be either stupid or missing something. I don't see how this username is a violation of UPOL; can you explain the username and help me understand why it is? Thanks for the heads up about this, by the way :-) ~Oshwah~ 07:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah Hey Oshwah. I removed my comment, as I was just typing up a report on UAA when you got back to me. The account name appears that it could be in violation of username policy as an promotional username. Your welcome (assuming I didn't make a mistake, haha.) Boomer Vial 07:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah User:HeviliftWiki is another account with an possible username policy violation. Here is their contribution history: Special:Contributions/HeviliftWiki Boomer Vial 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Boomer Vial - The first username you reported: I tried looking it up with spaces and other combinations, and I couldn't match it to any company or organization that gave me the sure idea that it was promotional, so I held back from performing any action on that one. I'll take a look at this second username (although I don't see anything that gives me the idea that it's a blatant username violation either). ~Oshwah~ 14:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Good call - that one comes back to a company for sure. I went ahead and applied a soft block so that he can request a username change or use a new account. Cheers! ~Oshwah~ 14:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah So I guess it's only a username policy if they are named after an actual business/corporation/entity? Boomer Vial 22:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Username Policy - there are many kinds of usernames that are not allowed. When I believe that a username may be promotional, I judge it by Googling the username. If it comes back with results to an obviously-matching business name or a matching website domain that is promotional, then I'll usually proceed with a soft block if the username is blatantly obvious (meaning that the username can't possibly be anything else, or coincidentally mean anything else). If you're unsure, you can always wait until the user edits. Let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~ 23:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oshwah Will do. Thanks, Oshwah. :) Boomer Vial 23:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Any time! :-D ~Oshwah~ 23:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert of your edit to Fake news

Heads up, I was checking through citations on Fake news, and have partially reverted your restore & re-word.

The author who removed the claim originally as unsourced was correct: the claim does not correspond to the source. It was actually added before an unrelated citation. Please feel free to check over the citation if you disagree, I don't see any mention of the claim. --Michael Billington (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelBillington No arguments here. I probably assumed too much good faith on that account. I need to stop editing when so tired. Boomer Vial 00:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Spaces round section headings

Hello. Noticed you using a script to add spaces round section headings, as with this edit. You might want to skip that suggestion, or tell the script's owner that it shouldn't really be trying to enforce that format, because the relevant bit of MoS, at MOS:HEADINGS, says quite clearly that

Spaces around the Title (e.g. == Title ==) are optional and ignored.

The important word is optional. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Struway2 Ah, I see. I figured it was an error because the titles with this spacing (==Example==) shows up with a red highlight, indicating an error. Thanks for the heads-up. Boomer Vial 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making the ANI thread on OrangeSkunk. I was actually in the middle of writing one myself... I'm not exactly sure what they're up to, but definitely a WP:NOTHERE / WP:CIR issue... 172.58.41.54 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And they've been indef. blocked by RickinBaltimore. 172.56.39.33 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

k 78.108.46.116 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sentinel Capital Partners

Hello,

I don't edit Misplaced Pages but was looking for information on Sentinel Capital Partners and noticed that the same paragraph was written verbatim in two places next to each other in the same short article. Under the introductory section and under the "Operations" section. Looks like it was literally copy and pasted. I figured I would delete one of them to help Misplaced Pages out. I did give an explanation, I wrote "Deleting duplicate information" which is exactly what I did. If you want it to say the same exact thing back to back in the article then I apologize for the deletion. I got the information I needed and now I'm headed out. Just figured I'd mention the problem and try to help...

2601:141:300:1EFA:0:0:0:8F50 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:141:300:1EFA:0:0:0:8F50 I checked the edit over again, and realized I must have missed it, or didn't look closely enough. I restored you edits. Sorry about reverting it. Boomer Vial 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Titanic

It is not the first time that Misplaced Pages has removed information about the Titanic that is false. For years, it was said in the article that John Jacob Astor was one of the people killed by the forward funnel and even used a source for it; it was removed when that story was disproved by Titanic historians. The Jack Phillips article maintained for many years that he died on boat B (depsite evidence to the contrary) and has now used sources to disprove that story. The Titanic sinking article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering captain Edward Smith. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" describes Smith's actions as indecisive and it claims that he displayed a lack of crew management skills in the aftermath of Titanic hitting the iceberg, but his biographical article on Misplaced Pages states the exact opposite - that he performed his duties in an admirable fashion given the extraordinarily difficult circumstances and never lost his cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.125 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

78.144.247.125 The burden to prove so is upon you. Come back with sources to back you claims, and I'll support removing it. Boomer Vial 23:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I did give sources in the revision I wrote. They were: "Testimony of Arthur G. Peuchen at Titanic inquiry.com" and ""British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry. Day 9". Titanic Inquiry."

At the very least, take a look at the version I made or search for the quoted words or read a book.

78.144.247.125 Don't accuse me of not looking at the revisions. In none of your edits regarding the matter did you cite any sources what so ever. Nor did you bother to put them into in-line citation format. Acroterion specifically told you to provide the sources to support the change. This means including it the correct format in the edit. Not posting it, and expecting us to go searching for it. The burden, again, is on you to prove so. Also, that's not an example of an reliable source. Boomer Vial 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

AIV Comment

Hi there. Thanks for your comment at AIV about that user, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the report and leave your thoughts. I agree with you that the the anon who is reporting some anons/users is not fully versed in policy and I have been monitoring the totality of a user's conduct before issuing a block. In regards to the specific comment you left, while that user's public contribution was not necessarily vandalism, taking a look at the edit filter log for them (I'm not sure if you are able to see everything without the sysop and edit filter manager flags) shows that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and a vandalism only account. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mifter D'oh. I keep forgetting about the edit filter log. I can see it, I forgot it was there because I was only brought to awareness of it's existence the other day. Well, I left a message on the IP editor's talk page regarding the situation, so happy to help anyway I can. Boomer Vial 00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And don't worry about not noticing the edit filter, its super easy to forget to check when evaluating a user/anon. Mifter (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to follow up on what has been discussed here and on Mifter's talkpage... I had commented about this sort of thing with a couple other admins overtime, and I can say that there are some admins that will block a user/IP address with only limited warnings (levels 1, 2), and there are some who will only block after a level 4 warning is breached. It's a judgment call on the admin's part, whether or not they feel like a block is appropriate or not. Some admins crack down much harder on vandals than others, which is why I have been filing several reports at a time. Regarding accounts (yeah I know, I really should make one someday, lol), it is pretty easy to tell whether an editor is WP:NOTHERE from solely a couple of edits. In regards to the example that you provided above, Boomer Vial, with Hi dude 13579, this user had only one live edit before being blocked, but if you look through the edit filter log for this particular user, you will see that they would have had more live edits but they were stopped by the edit filter. Now, I understand your concern with the lack of warnings, though. Even though this user only had one warning from ClueBot, which I agree, wasn't necessarily vandalism. But they had attempted to make, for example, this edit which was subsequently stopped by the edit filter. I feel as though if one were to create an account, they should go into it knowing that there will be consequences for vandalism. Regardless of this or that, any admin is free to block no matter how they see fit. So with that in mind, I file several reports knowing that a few may get declined due to the particular admin who is happening to be patrolling WP:AIV at the time, which in this case, was Mifter. I also see that this user was also brought up in discussion. Now, Materialscientist made this block, so Mifter might have made a different decision with this user's contributions... On a separate note, I do see Materialscientist at WP:AIV a lot, and from what I can tell, they seem to crack down on vandalism to a much higher degree than some other admins patrolling WP:AIV. Regrading reports for IP addresses, this is much more of a judgment call, since IP addresses often change ownership. A lot of the IP address reports that I make to WP:AIV have a very long history of vandalism, with few to no constructive contributions at all within its editing history, along with a long block log history. Some admins will take the duration of the previous blocks into account when performing blocks on these IP addresses, while others will only consider the most recent edits. I see the benefit of both options here:

1. Long-term blocks: I've seen these blocks performed anywhere from 1 month up to as much as 3 years... These are particularly school, institution or library IP addresses. In my opinion, the benefit of this is that the block will prevent much more vandalism from occurring, then it will hinder a constructive user's ability to edit. Likewise, if a constructive editor is blocked from editing, the {{anonblock}} or {{school block}} templates will give the user instructions on how to create an account to edit (which again, I really need to do someday...). The only downside to this is that account creation is often disabled with these blocks, and I have seen some admins allow account creation with these blocks in order to rectify that problem. However, if an abusive user were to create an account and vandalize on this IP address, then the account would eventually be blocked and autoblock will only shortly prevent them from creating an account, which will be helpful to the constructive editor that may show up on a school IP once in a blue moon...
2. Short-term blocks: I've seen these blocks performed anywhere from 3 hours up to 72 hours. Even with an abusive block log, an administrator may not feel comfortable performing such a long block on an IP address. The benefit here would be that there would be very little collateral damage from the block's effect.|2=I'm going to go ahead and collapse this since its pretty long, but in short, I have responded to the conversation about my WP:AIV reports. Regards. 172.58.41.215 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)}}

Eh, I honestly wish admins would pick an level of enforcement, and stick with it. Especially considering the effort to warn someone for level 1 and up seems unnecessary at some points, and only necessary at other points. I do appreciate your thought-filled response though, 172.58.41.215. Thank you, and I will take it under advisement. Boomer Vial 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Lee's Summit North Misplaced Pages Page

Hello, I am a representative at Lee's Summit North High School. I saw your message that you undid changes that I had made to the Lee's Summit North Misplaced Pages page. I have reverted my changes back. The page had been vandalized with inappropriate content that needed to be removed immediately. I appreciate your comments. I have not dealt with vandalism before on Misplaced Pages so please be patient as I navigate through this. Lsnwebmaster (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah A clear violation of username policy if I've seen one. Boomer Vial 04:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and given a soft block. This will allow the user to request a username change and continue editing as before. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~ 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Username policy?

Please provide link where I can find username policy you've indicated I may be in violation of. Thought I'd read through pretty carefully advice on creating username, but now when I search for said policy, I'm only finding articles regarding creation of said policies, and not actually specific to Misplaced Pages. Really not trying to be in violation, so pointing me in the right direction would be incredibly helpful. Thank you! CGPwiki (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

CPGwiki You'll find it at WP:UPOL. Boomer Vial 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My user page

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm allowed to request for my user page to be protected, right? Boomer Vial 20:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are. What kind of protection are you looking for? There hasn't been any vandalism. Widr (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Widr Just semi-protection. I'm just taking a precautionary measure, but if you want me to wait until it's justified to protect it, that's fine. Boomer Vial 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

178.222.82.95

How do you figure? Different ISPs in different countries, different areas of editing... --NeilN 03:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was going by behavioral evidence based on the last IP editors to edit the talk page of Sro23. My mistake. Boomer Vial 03:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo

Thanks for your message. I have deleted the some of the content on this page because it inaccurately depicts my fathers views on the subject. We, Godfrey Mdimi's children are collating a comprehensive account to be added soon. In its current state the page inaccurately majors on an issue that was minor for our dad and also inaccurately states his position on the topic. Ipolile (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ipolile I suggest that you leave the article alone, as you have a conflict of interest, and any further edits will only guarantee that you will be blocked. Boomer Vial 12:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC) A

Are you an administrator? Ipolile (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether I am or not is contrary to the point. Please read WP:COI for any questions involving conflicts of interest. Boomer Vial 12:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hey there,

I saw you tagged the article Dasmesh Punjabi School with A1 and A3 the very minute it was created. In general, it is not recommended that articles be tagged for speedy deletion in those two categories shortly after being created, as this might be seen as a bit bitey, especially towards newcomers. See here for more information. In any event, A3 seems inappropriate as the article in question did not consist solely of external links, category tags and "See also" sections etc. Anyway, thanks for your edit and hope you find my suggestions useful :). --Dps04 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dps04 Ah, regarding the later half of your comment, I clicked the wrong CSD template. As for the first half, how long is a good amount of time to when from the article creation date to add a CSD tag via A7? Boomer Vial 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no strict rule, but I'd say wait for around 15 minutes, or at least 10 minutes (preferably more) before tagging with A7. Hope this helps! --Dps04 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

Hello there. I notice that here you have tagged an article with CSD G6 criteria. Just being written in a foreign language is not grounds for deletion - in these circumstances it is appropriate to place the {{notenglish}} template. This will place it so an editor proficient in both languages can translate the page. WP:PNT is a great page from some in-depth information on this. CSD is only for very clear-cut cases, so if there is not rational listed for CSD - it won't be deleted under CSD. I would read WP:CSD for some examples on where/where not to use them. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Noted TheMagikCow Apologies about that. Boomer Vial 06:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion on a source

{{helpme}} I was reading over the article of Saul Alinsky, and I couldn't help but notice how heavily the article relies on the March 1972 issue of Playboy that features an article with Alinsky. I also noticed that the there is no actual reference behind the citation, I did a bit of digging to see if I could find a suitable reference for the interview. I'm not particularly "well-versed" in WP:RS, so a second opinion if this would be an acceptable reliable source. Thanks. Boomer Vial 08:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

First, please note that a reference does not have to be online. It's fine for them to cite it as ""Playboy Interview: Saul Alinsky". Playboy Magazine. March 1972." - there's a reasonable expectation that an interested reader would be able to track down that source, if they wanted to - e.g. using a library service.

Secondly, sure, "The Progress Report" seems like it could be used as a reliable source - it's a non-profit, with editorial control over that published content. I suggest that, if it covers the same fact, you add it as a further reference to existing claims. If you want to add further info, sure, use it - subject to the usual stuff about WP:WEIGHT etc.

If anyone disagrees, they can undo your change and you can discuss it with 'em. (WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:VRS).

Note that, if using that reference, you are citing "The Progress Report" - you are not citing the wayback machine page, which exists merely as a Misplaced Pages:Convenience link to the published information.

For further help with referencing queries, there's also Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

CVUA training

Hi there!

I've noticed you've just added your name to the list of Counter-Vandalism Academy trainers. I'm one of Music1201's students and am concerned since my trainer has not been active on Misplaced Pages for a while (almost two months); moreover, he has not made any changes to my CVUA training page in six months. On the CVUA talk page, me and ThePlatypusofDoom have initiated a proposal regarding trainer activity, and if it was to go through, this would essentially allow for Music1201 to be removed from the active trainers' list.

For this reason, I am wondering whether you are willing to take over for him so that I can finish my CVUA training and have endorsement when I am ready to request rights such as rollbacker, patroller, and pending changes reviewer, all of which I have previously failed to gain on the grounds of lacking sufficient counter-vandalism experience.

Thanks for your consideration! Regards, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some Gadget Geek Where did you leave off at? Here? Boomer Vial 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's right. I don't really know whose method he used, but that's as much as Music1201 assigned to me. I think at this point I should be ready to proceed with the next stage, depending on whose method you prefer. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Some Gadget GeekAlright, well that's the bottom of the page, which pretty much covers everything concerning vandalism, so I'll grade you, and let you know of the results. Boomer Vial 05:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Updated User:Music1201/CVUA/Some Gadget Geek is now updated. Now to grade the overall assessment. Boomer Vial 06:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me

Can you help me to vote this page Shah Aqeeq Baba Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed I don't understand why you are so interested, or invested in the article. Do you have some sort of affiliation with the person with whom the article is about? Also, please read WP:SOCK, seeing as you didn't bother to even read my reply to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba. Boomer Vial 06:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Boomer Vial sir because many people are waiting for this page in Pakistan Shah Aqeeq Baba is an Sufi saint like Lal Shahbaz Qalander but his page is necessary to create.

Sir Can you vote to my page Hammadsaeed (talk)

And sir can you give me advise how to save my page from deleting please sir help me Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply me plz Hammadsaeed (talk) Hammadsaeed (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed  Done Now please stop spamming my talk page. Boomer Vial 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice

All filters have false positives, hence do check actual text before reporting a user/IP. Example: CurbStone (talk · contribs). Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist  Taken under advisement Oh. I seen that they tripped filter 384 multiple times, so I felt no need to assume good faith. Apologies. Boomer Vial 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with AFCH

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've checked the box in my preferences labeled "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", and refreshed my cache, but the option to open AFCH did not appear. Boomer Vial 03:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It will show up in the More dropdown in User: and Draft: pages. Did you check that? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber I'mma dummy. Thanks. :) Boomer Vial 04:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation.

Hi, Boomer Vial! Remember this user? So I suspect, that he has a puppet. I have started an investigation, regarding it. It needs more attention, because the puppet is not blocked. Could you help me bring attention to the investigation. Cheers, FriyMan 10:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

FriyMan I see that Widr already blocked the sockpuppet, and you've left a thorough, and valid reasoning to your suspicion, so I'm not sure what else there is to be done. Also, I'm not sure what you are expecting to accomplish, as the IP range is so vast between each other that a range block calculates that potentially "2147483648 users" would be collateral damage in such a sweeping block. I would, instead, suggest to administrators to protect the target pages of the sockpuppet. It would be easier to just WP:DENY. Boomer Vial 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:38:43, 6 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Credoxtalkies

• Credoxtalkies (talk · contribs)
  • User:Credoxtalkies/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please suggest me for what all details should i provide references?? What this document lacks for aproval?

Credoxtalkies (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Credoxtalkies Try reading WP:V, and WP:RS to get a general idea of what is accepted as a "reliable source". You can also use the help desk, or leave a "helpme" template on your talk page (with two of these {} in place of the quotations) if you have any further questions. Boomer Vial 21:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Drafts and inline citations

Thanks for pitching in to help at AfC. I noticed that you declined several non-BLP drafts for not having inline citations. Inline citations are great, and I wish all drafts had them, but generally speaking they are not required. Declining drafts for their absence is one of the common reviewing errors to avoid.

The main circumstances in which inline citations are required are for contentious material about living persons and for direct quotations. If a draft makes extraordinary claims that appears doubtful, that too could justify declining for reason "ilc". Otherwise, decline the draft for another reason, leave it for another editor to review, or accept it and either improve it by adding inline citations, or if necessary template it with {{citation needed}} or another suitable references cleanup tag. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Noted How strange it is that failure of using inline citations is even an option to decline a submission. Thanks for the feedback, Worldbruce. Boomer Vial 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-English reliable sources

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

What is the stipulation regarding reliable sources that are in a foreign language? Are they allowed to be used, or not? Is there any gray areas of the like? Thanks in advanced. Boomer Vial 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOENG is the policy you're looking for. Basically; yes, non-English sources are fine if there are no English equivalents, but you should provide a translation as part of the citation. Yunshui _水 11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Redacted

Apologies, BV, but since this section now directly connects a username and an IP address I'm going to have to oversight it. Suffice to say, your intuition was correct. Yunshui _水 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yunshui No problems. Boomer Vial 13:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I saw you left some encouragement on User talk:86.20.193.222.

Maybe you can help me out please. In this comment 86 implied he or she could view the then deleted revisions. (I've since requested their restoration.) Well, only administrators can view deleted revisions, and, at the time 86 made this comment the deleted versions were unavailable.

I asked 86 to explain how they were able to view those deleted revision, as their comment opened up the very alarming possibility that 86 was a sockpuppetmaster, who had another ID, one with administrator authority, and that they used that ID to look at the deleted revisions.

Note: 86 excised my questions, without answering them.

I see, from your talk page, you know why sockpuppetry is frowned upon.

So, has 86 dropped any comments that hint they were using multiple IDs?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're posting harassment in the most odd places. VPP, and now here.

I chose to ignore your questions, because you'd ignored mine - you answered questions with questions.

Anyway - the answer is, google. Now please stop tilting at windmills. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

02:44:41, 8 March 2017 review of submission by Dtilque

• Dtilque (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:List of cities outside the United States which have a city, town, village, or hamlet within the United States named for them (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my page. You gave three reasons for rejection.

The first reason was that it is too long. No argument here; it is too long. The way to shorten it is to break it apart into smaller chunks and have more than one article. I'd like some guidance on this, though. Currently it has 700+ entries, broken up into some 60 sections based on the country. I don't want to break it up into 60 articles, as some of those countries have only one entry. So is there some upper limit as to the size of a list?

Second is that it's too confusing, especially the lede paragraphs. I won't argue with this, but I'm too close to the subject matter to see what is confusing. I'd be happy to rewrite the paragraphs, but need to know what I need to expain better.

Finally, there's too many repeat links. I think what you really meant here is that there's too many repeat uses of footnotes. Yes, I did reuse them and I had a reason, but perhaps my reason is flawed.

Shortly after I submitted it, I asked a friend to review it. At that time it did not have all those footnotes. He pointed out that Misplaced Pages's policy was to have a citation for every fact. Well, my page has three facts for every entry in each table: 1. that city A outside the US exists; 2. that place B inside the US exists; and 3. (most critically) that place B is named for city A.

I assumed that the fact that Misplaced Pages has pages for city A and place B was evidence for facts 1 and 2. Where there were no wikipages, I gave cites to support the city/place's existence. Fact 3 for most entries is stated in the wikipages for place B, although it's not backed by a cite in many of them. My friend implied that I should provide my own cites for fact 3, so I went and added a whole bunch of footnotes in the Notes column of the tables. But there are books out there that have support for numerous places (all they are is a list of place name etymologies), so I reused the footnotes that cited those books. For some footnotes, this meant a lot of reuse.

So should I remove the footnotes for entries where the facts are already supported on another page? What about the pages that state the fact but do not have a citation? Or perhaps I should remove all of these footnotes?

Thank you again for reviewing my submission, and I look forward to seeing your reply.

Dtilque (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dtilque With the first point of rejection, I meant specifically the article title. It is too confusing in the aspect that the lede paragraph does not do a good job of explain the context of the article in simple terms, which would be preferable. As for the third point, I'm still new to reviewing articles, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know what I'm talking about, nor would I risk giving you ill-advised information. As such, I would suggest that you read some other list-oriented articles, and ask at the articles for creation help desk so you can gain a better idea of how the list should be correctly constructed, especially ones that rely on the same link for different portions of text. If it comes down the fact that I was incorrect in declining your submission, I apologize. Sorry that I could not be of more assistance. Boomer Vial 15:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the title is way too long as well. I had a somewhat shorter title in mind, but didn't know how to apply it. This is my first article and I was unfamiliar with the whole submission procedure. So someone else came by and moved it to the Drafts section and applied a title. What they did was take the first sentence and chop off the first three words. Not exactly the best way to make a title. I'll look into changing the title first thing.

Thank you for your reply.

Dtilque (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re your edit summary at User talk:Spencer12112

Well, the reason I "didn't both to revert once" is because I was actually doing something else first - reporting the vandal to WP:AIV. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink It would be appreciated if you didn't step on the toes of others, and cut corners. You also left a warning on their talk page, despite the fact that you didn't revert them a single time. That is what I am talking about. Not only that, but it can be extremely confusing to a new editor who was reverted by one editor, and subsequently warned by another. Boomer Vial 16:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK.... Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Play nice, guys, we're all on the same team here. No-one is obligated to revert every time they warn, nor is there any requirement that these things be done in a set order. It's very easy to accidentally duplicate warnings, especially when everybody and his dog has access to Twinkle these days. You're both trying to achieve the same goal (vandalism=bad), so how's about you bury the hatchet and move on? Yunshui _水 16:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree Yunshui that my post above was slightly snarky but I thought the edit summary's tone was uncalled-for. I honestly thought that maybe BV hadn't seen in the meantime I was reporting the now-blocked editor. I have subsequently realized that BV edited my AIV report, removed my account-name, replaced it with their own, edited the content and also changed the time-stamp. Going away to play nicely now. Shearonink (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink I actually removed your report, and replaced with my own. Sorry about doing that, I only did it out of annoyance. Yunshui Yet we are obligated to warn every time we revert. It is less confusing for any new editors who might have questions on why they were reverted. Boomer Vial 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Ok. Lol, well maybe I hadn't had a chance to go back and check the article that was being vandalized/reverted yet... but all's well that ends well. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

1949 Wilkes 200

The vandalize of the 1949 Wilkes 200 page was accidental, during editing I saved unfinished work and while I was fixing the info the vandalize report caused me to lose the new fixed info. I'll be more careful in the future, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.125.162 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@104.183.125.162: Looking at it again, I see that now. Apologies for reverting your edits. Boomer Vial 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

James M. Holmes

Change of command was yesterday:

http://www.acc.af.mil/AboutUs/ACCLeadership/Display/tabid/5767/Article/1109496/general-james-m-holmes.aspx

2001:7E8:D484:801:69D4:CEA2:229E:92A1 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I do see. Sorry about the revert, in that case. You should be using the edit summary, as to avoid attracting the attention of anti-vandalism editors. Boomer Vial 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

British War Crimes

Hello can I ask why you reverted the article to a misleading version and removed the warning POV and Original research tags. I believe I followed all the rules and justified the changes on the talk pages. The intro cites the Hague convention and the Hague convention wouldn't apply to either the Boer wars or the Irish insurgencies of the first half of the 20 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.109.55 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the summary of my edit, I was reverting the article to the last acceptable revision, until the mess is figured out. Since you are here, do you care to provide some sources to support the claims you made in this edit? Boomer Vial 11:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

your user page and that extraneous }

I have your talkpage on watch since we were chatting recently and noticed that you were having that extra bracket issue on your User page. Well, guess what? - I figured out where that extraneous } came from. There was a triple }}} instead of a double }} on {{User air guitar-4}}}. Anyway, little coding things like that drive me nuts especially because I am not any kind of a Wiki-coder, all I know is what I've been able to pick up during my editing here on Misplaced Pages - I thought you might want to know. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink Thanks a bunch. My being unable to find that character was driving me up the wall. Isn't it weird where it ended up being located in relation to the actual text source? Boomer Vial 07:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yay! And I know what you mean about the placement, it's the kind of thing that would drive me nuts too - trying to find the oddity. What I did was I opened up the old page (before the most recent version) from within the editing history, then did a page search for }}} and went through all the }}} on the page and looked for the set of three that didn't belong, that didn't match up with another set of {{{. When I found the extra } I eliminated it and then hit Preview for confirmation. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

03:14:28, 14 March 2017 review of submission by 36.75.139.63

• 36.75.139.63 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lachlan Philpott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. The playwright concerned has written over 20 plays that have been performed all over the world and he is a well known advocate for the arts in Australia who has chaired numerous committees and advised peak bodies. His work and advocacy have appeared in countless newspapers, TV current affairs shows and radio programs and he is a published author. So, I'm really not sure where I'm going wrong. Are you able to take the time to guide me through this listing to give it a better chance of being accepted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Lachlan_Philpott

36.75.139.63 See the message on the draft that Primefac left when he declined the article. Boomer Vial 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

But I made the changes he requested, and added much more primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.139.63 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem. Reliable secondary sources are needed, so that notability can be established. Boomer Vial 05:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay multiple secondary sources are now added, addressing that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", and that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" and that "created a body of work" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.75.139.63 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking now, stand by. Boomer Vial 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The "The Australian" reference is a good start, but the other sources are not reliable. Such as, "Oberon Books", "abc.net.au", or "Currency.com.au". Boomer Vial 05:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for your time and help. I've removed the Oberon books section (they are a reputable publishing house, so I may question why that isn't a reliable thing to include - the subject's work has been published by a commercial publishing house so I thought that was quite relevant to notability) and expanded the references from The Australian newspaper.

I just want to question: abc.net.au is the web presence of the ABC, the Australian national broadcaster (the equivalent of the BBC in the UK), so can you help me understand why that is not a useable citation?

Thank you again and I look forward to your feedback on this revised edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You would have to ask Primefac. Boomer Vial 01:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about this ABC page, it's not that it's unreliable, it's that it's literally one sentence. That's fine for fact-checking, but completely useless for notability purposes. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've revised that section to expand all references, quoting from the transcript of the program and then also from various other peers of the playwright who spoke to publications of record. I've also expanded the next section in the same way, and included a new paragraph that also contains more substantial text.

How is it looking now?

I really do appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with plot summary expansion of fictional works

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I was thinking of doing some plot expansion for the series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and I was curious as to the stipulation regarding plot expansions of fictional works, and original research. I read over the manual for plot expansion, but found it too confusing to make heads or tails of. Sometimes it's better to ask another more experienced editor. Boomer Vial 21:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume that's Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)? A good place to ask for expert advice about the amount of plot for that article would be WT:WikiProject Star Wars. Personally I would say the "Episodes" section already gives quite a good overview of important plot lines, though some expansion may be possible. Huon (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Huon Well, more what I wanted to know is if watching an episode, and then filling in plot summaries based on the events of the episode is allowed. Boomer Vial 23:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's merely a "what happens in the episode" summary, then a primary source (like the episode itself) is acceptable. However, for an interpretation of what happens in the episode (for example, "This foreshadows events in film X") we'd need secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot is not archiving, or at least not in order

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I noticed that the archive bot is not archiving older inactive discussions on my talk page. I've tried a few times to change the day parameter to make it archive, but it still does nothing. Can someone help me set the archive bot so that it will archive the older discussions, say 120 days or older. I stress the or older part because I want to make sure that all of the past discussions are archived. Thanks a bunch. Boomer Vial 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• As what I see currently, "algo=old(30d)" means it will archive once a month (30 days), so have you changed it so far? if not, it may be something else. SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the day parameter to 60, as well as 120 to see if it was simply skipping over the older discussions. No luck there. Boomer Vial 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The archive bots typically need valid timestamps in signatures (e.g., "05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)"). If a section doesn't have a timestamp, it won't automatically be archived --slakr 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What Slakr said, auto-archiving won't happen without those darn timestamps (complete with the "UTC"). AND - I figured out another reason why the Bot isn't archiving correctly.... The counter was set to 18 late in the day on March 15 but Archive pages 4-17 don't exist & so User talk:Boomer Vial/Archive 18 got established kind of by accident. I think you'll need to get an admin who is super-familiar with page-moves to come in and clean up the errant pages. In the meantime, changing your counter to 3 should help. If your talkpage is getting a lot of posts you can set the archiving frequency to 14d to keep the size trimmed down. The last archiving date to Archive 3 was on March 10, the first post to Archive 18 was on March 16. Shearonink (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back to 3, and moved the discussions from archive 18 to archive 3. I wasn't fully aware of what this parameter did, thus my decision to alter it. Stupid mistake, I will add. Thank for the help Shea, Slakr, Swis, and Rotideypoc41352! Boomer Vial 07:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol, it's only stupid if you keep doing it y'know. 1st or 2nd or even 10th? not stupid. 100th?...wellll....*maybe* so. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

code for external links

How to do those,

You can put and

And it comes out like this;

You can put google and a random diff

86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Re "code source slips my memory" - mmm, me too. A good thing that's easy to remember though, WP:CHEATSHEET. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving others' talk pages

Boomer, I see you're archiving others' user talk pages. Unless you have permission from them, you really shouldn't go messing with others' talk pages per WP:NOBAN. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith until I saw these two edits: Given the ridiculous number of edits you made on User talk:Jtdirl, it appears you're trying to pad your edit count as a member of Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls. I suggest you stop. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1 Editing content on their talk page is not the same as archiving, and I failed to find anything that states that archiving is not allowed, or even frowned upon. I was also following the instructions, and closely paying attention to possible active discussions, as well and sizing the page down to under 75,000 bytes. A large majority of the discussions I archived were image deletion notices, or inactive discussions from up to ten years ago. Assuming good faith is not jumping to conclusions, so I suggest you read WP:AGF again. I'm dabbling here and there in different aspects of Misplaced Pages to see what I find most enjoyable. Thank you for mistaking my eagerness to help contribute to Misplaced Pages in an constructive manner, as someone who is here to earn titles. I know that I'm still a long way from even being considered for sysop, but there is no harm in showing an willingness to show potential commitment to the site. Boomer Vial 00:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Making 100+ edits each on several users' talk pages and another 100+ on each of their archives you created, then updating your edit count badge is about as transparent as it gets. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you should read WP:AGF. I have been updating my LiveEditCount userbox for a while now.. Boomer Vial 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)